So I have a question: Lately, I've been noticing a huge rise in copyright claims on sites like Youtube that limit certain content to a single country or flat-out deny anyone from viewing said content.

I uploaded a video to Youtube not too long ago that used a couple of clips from the movie "Alien" to make it a little more interesting. It was immediately blocked from being viewed in Germany due to it having footage that belongs to Fox.

Copyright laws clearly state that using portions of somebody's work in a non-profit fashion, i.e. in cases of commentary, education or research, is legal in every way. It's a law that was put forward to decriminalise the use of the copyright holder's work in a way that does not rob him of profit and that does not affect his/her target market.

My question is this: Why are so many companies getting their panties in such huge bunches that they are trying to force areas of the internet from ever showing any of their material without paying the copyright holder money? Why is it that companies are so against the broadcasting of clips or scenes from their products - which, at least in my case, has more often that not raised my awareness of said product and in several cases has moved me to purchase it - despite the fact that when you do it for non-profit purposes and without hurting their market it is perfectly legal?

tl;dr This thread is about the Fair Use policy in copyright laws and the fact that large companies just ignore it.

Scared of misuse, and the need for total control when it comes to their property. Or not, I really don't know. But it sure as hell pisses me off that I can't watch half of the stuff one youtube because of it.

If you include something in the description of your video saying how you're not making any profits off it and the copyright belongs to you, they shouldn't be able to block it - that's worked for me, at least.

But you shouldn't have to do that anyway. They're just paranoid because they're not making as much money as they used to so they control it the easy way by blocking Youtube videos, which isn't even the main source of their losses as far as I know.

If you include something in the description of your video saying how you're not making any profits off it and the copyright belongs to you, they shouldn't be able to block it - that's worked for me, at least.

If you include something in the description of your video saying how you're not making any profits off it and the copyright belongs to you, they shouldn't be able to block it - that's worked for me, at least.

But you shouldn't have to do that anyway. They're just paranoid because they're not making as much money as they used to so they control it the easy way by blocking Youtube videos, which isn't even the main source of their losses as far as I know.

They don't read it you know? Some videos get blocked immediately after uploading, meaning something is scanning through them. I doubt any human is actually going through all the videos getting uploaded daily, which is quite a lot.

They don't read it you know? Some videos get blocked immediately after uploading, meaning something is scanning through them. I doubt any human is actually going through all the videos getting uploaded daily, which is quite a lot.

I put a video up without it and it got taken down, so I uploaded another one with the new description and it's still up there

They don't read it you know? Some videos get blocked immediately after uploading, meaning something is scanning through them. I doubt any human is actually going through all the videos getting uploaded daily, which is quite a lot.

I don't know about other websites, but I know that Youtube has algorithms that scan through everything that is uploaded and compares it to a database of "copyrighted material" and puts automatically generated blocks on everything that turns up positive results.

Is this law an international law, or is it just in some specific countries? I would find it hard to believe that the law is universal, so I can definitely understand some countries not allowing it, while other countries would not mind.

Is this law an international law, or is it just in some specific countries? I would find it hard to believe that the law is universal, so I can definitely understand some countries not allowing it, while other countries would not mind.

Copyrights are usually sought in all countries who have people who would be interested in the content, and the laws are generally somewhat similar. I guarantee the movie Titanic, for example, is under copyright protection in nearly every country in the world.

they own the copyright, they can decide what people can do with their material (excluding fair usage provisions).

but the fair usage policies are my entire point: as a copyright holder, you can't just come out and say "quoting my work is illegal" in every circumstance. It depends from case to case, and I'm pretty sure as long as no profit is made, anybody who claims fair use has a pretty strong case.

Is this law an international law, or is it just in some specific countries? I would find it hard to believe that the law is universal, so I can definitely understand some countries not allowing it, while other countries would not mind.

copyright isn't necessarily international law, but each country subscribes to a similar system in order to ensure that IP from their country receives the same level of protection abroad as it does at home.

There are differences in fair usage policies and the consequences infringement, but overall, there's not that much difference.

Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433

Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.

but the fair usage policies are my entire point: as a copyright holder, you can't just come out and say "quoting my work is illegal" in every circumstance. It depends from case to case, and I'm pretty sure as long as no profit is made, anybody who claims fair use has a pretty strong case.

not really. Piratebay wasn't making a profit, that didn't make it fair usage.

And whether or not you're making money, Youtube IS. Which is why they have to take precautions to remove infringing content. It's not the user that's going to be sued, it's most likely youtube, but as long as they take action, they're ok. So they put an automatic system in place to detect infringing content.

computers can't work on a case by case basis.

not yet anyway.

Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433

Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.

I put a video up without it and it got taken down, so I uploaded another one with the new description and it's still up there

The content ID system is not perfect, the odds of a number getting blocked and few remaining is possible. In fact all of my Youtube videos have copyrighted content. I had a disclaimer pasted on all of them in the description and yet get blocked. The only solution for now is to counter-claim them under fair use.

not really. Piratebay wasn't making a profit, that didn't make it fair usage.

And whether or not you're making money, Youtube IS. Which is why they have to take precautions to remove infringing content. It's not the user that's going to be sued, it's most likely youtube, but as long as they take action, they're ok. So they put an automatic system in place to detect infringing content.

computers can't work on a case by case basis.

not yet anyway.

They never will be able to either. Not even humans can do that. Not really anyway.

not really. Piratebay wasn't making a profit, that didn't make it fair usage.

And whether or not you're making money, Youtube IS. Which is why they have to take precautions to remove infringing content. It's not the user that's going to be sued, it's most likely youtube, but as long as they take action, they're ok. So they put an automatic system in place to detect infringing content.

computers can't work on a case by case basis.

not yet anyway.

Piratebay is hurting the copyright holder's market, though. They have torrents that offer full products without giving the creators any benefit from it. You can't compare offering torrents of full movies on piratebay to showing a couple of clips from a movie during a review or a music video on Youtube.

Youtube's copyright infringement algorithms are pointless because even if it can detect copyrighted material, it doesn't mean it will stop it from being uploaded. I circumvented the youtube ban of my mentioned video by simply flipping the footage horizontally. Am I hurting the copyright holder in any way? No. Am I cheating a pointless blockage of footage in all cases, even those that would normally fall under fair usage? Yes.

Piratebay is hurting the copyright holder's market, though. They have torrents that offer full products without giving the creators any benefit from it. You can't compare offering torrents of full movies on piratebay to showing a couple of clips from a movie during a review or a music video on Youtube.

review? no. music video? yes.

why is uploading a music video any worse than uploading a full song or a copyrighted short animation?

Youtube is hurting the copyright holder's market. maybe not to the extent of piratebay but people upload entire albums onto the site, upload music videos (which are distributed in the same way TV shows are) etc.

Youtube's copyright infringement algorithms are pointless because even if it can detect copyrighted material, it doesn't mean it will stop it from being uploaded. I circumvented the youtube ban of my mentioned video by simply flipping the footage horizontally. Am I hurting the copyright holder in any way? No. Am I cheating a pointless blockage of footage in all cases, even those that would normally fall under fair usage? Yes.

you may be hurting the copyright holder but as the algorithm can't determine that, and they'd rather be overly cautious than risk being sued, it's understandable that any infringing material detected is removed. The alternative is to have the algorithm flag up copyrighted material and have them reviewed by a person, but the costs and man power necessary would be ridiculous.

Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433

Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.

why is uploading a music video any worse than uploading a full song or a copyrighted short animation?

I worded that wrong, I meant a fan music video. Not the official music video itself but footage from, say, movies or cartoons cut together to fit the music of a certain song.

And as for short animations or short films, I have to slip into the role of the victims here: what person involved in a short film, animated or not, would ever complain about his video being spread about as long as his name is included in the credits?On another note, anybody who uploads their videos to Youtube signs off their rights of their content and allows youtube to do whatever the hell they want to do with it, so anybody worth their salt would never upload to youtube anyways.

I worded that wrong, I meant a fan music video. Not the official music video itself but footage from, say, movies or cartoons cut together to fit the music of a certain song.

ah, so using multiple copyrighted sources...

And as for short animations or short films, I have to slip into the role of the victims here: what person involved in a short film, animated or not, would ever complain about his video being spread about as long as his name is included in the credits?

for small artists, yes it's about exposure which potentially leads to greater revenue. But once you've achieved a wide exposure, assuming you're after a profit (if you're not there are creative commons licenses you can go for) it's about maximising profit and reducing losses.

On another note, anybody who uploads their videos to Youtube signs off their rights of their content and allows youtube to do whatever the hell they want to do with it, so anybody worth their salt would never upload to youtube anyways.

UG has similar license terms.

Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433

Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.

for small artists, yes it's about exposure which potentially leads to greater revenue. But once you've achieved a wide exposure, assuming you're after a profit (if you're not there are creative commons licenses you can go for) it's about maximising profit and reducing losses.

This is kinda where common sense kicks in:

Let's say you're Pixar:

You've spent millions of dollars making an animated picture. You have the power of Disney behind you, you have a reputation that makes it virtually impossible that you will lose money with this film. You release the film on DVD.

Somebody takes footage from the DVD and sets this footage to "Daddy DJ" and puts it on Youtube.

In some ways yes. But it's mostly just to catch anything potentially harmful to UG. I don't think they have the wherewithal or the desire even to do anything about it.

Just had a look at the ToS for youtube and the only discernible difference between UG and youtube is that with youtube you also grant a license for other users to modify your content to an extent (I assume this is so that the video reply feature can work considering your entire video would/should be based on their video).

other than that the licenses you grant UG and youtube award basically the same abilities.

Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433

Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.

You've spent millions of dollars making an animated picture. You have the power of Disney behind you, you have a reputation that makes it virtually impossible that you will lose money with this film. You release the film on DVD.

Somebody takes footage from the DVD and sets this footage to "Daddy DJ" and puts it on Youtube.

How in the world are you going to lose money because of that?

you're not, but computer programs can't do 'common sense'.

Rhythm in Jump. Dancing Close to You.

Quote by element4433

Yeah. people, like Lemoninfluence, are hypocrites and should have all their opinions invalidated from here on out.